That's not why developers make games. It's such a pessimistic worldview to hold.So charging full price for a game that clearly isn't ready for release isn't a scam? Seems like they wanted to pull one over on the consumers.
That's not why developers make games. It's such a pessimistic worldview to hold.So charging full price for a game that clearly isn't ready for release isn't a scam? Seems like they wanted to pull one over on the consumers.
I'm pretty sure he was just advocating that people try things for themselves before looking at critics and large aggregation sites to draw any solid conclusions. I tend to agree with that while taking a balanced approach with people and sites.
Not quite sure why the sheeple comment was necessary for this post, but maybe I missed something.
Most videogames charge full price. STALKER charged full price at release and it was, according to someone who worked at THQ, shipped the moment they could speedrun the main storyline without crashing. Does that make STALKER a "scam", somehow?So charging full price for a game that clearly isn't ready for release isn't a scam? Seems like they wanted to pull one over on the consumers.
The Early Access version was a mechanics test. It had some elements from Arthur's campaign, but that was it. This is a 30 hour long game with three different protagonists with their own mechanics and an actual story and all that. We don't know how much money it cost to make, but it goes without saying it's a significantly more expensive affair than the Early Access tech demo.
He recorded for it, but it was not used in the final game.
Yeah, no thanks.
With so many game releasss per month I won't pay my hard earned money to "find out for myself ". Every game deserves to go down this review process .
Wake up, sheeple!
Don't let those blowhard reviewers tell you what to touch/play/see, just listen to WoahW, instead.
Basically the point I was making was that it is good to take both things into account: your own feelings and intelligence with games, and reviews by people you trust more so than most.
Not just reviews by semi-famous people.
Don't really care what some you tuber/twitch personality (aka blowhard) says, so far I've enjoyed what I've played and don't see any of theee bugs that was mentioned.
Ya'll let these "reviewers" rule what you touch/play/see don't you?
If something looks interesting try it out yourself don't wait to hear what others think about it
The disturbing part is that for those two years they were likely truly working on the game. Seems like the thing was too ambitious, unfocused or under-supported. Or even all of the above.After watching Jim's video I just can't figure out what they were working on for the last 2 years since early access launch unless Jim is just having a bad time, the thing with the constant repeating NPCs is very noticable.
Not sure Microsoft made the right move buying this studio. Their last game contrast was decent but nothing you'd buy a studio over.
The early access launch was missing almost the entire game. The Youtube videos that cut the game down to just its story are 7 hours long. It's a 30 hour game with hours of cutscenes. None of which was in the Early Access launch, nor the early access builds. The game's story production values are very high. That's what they've spent the last two years working on. Expanding the game's narrative focus because that's what people wanted.After watching Jim's video I just can't figure out what they were working on for the last 2 years since early access launch.
In this case, it's because the game is quite overtly not influenced by Bioshock. The whole "Bioshock-like" thing was projected onto the game by external parties who lacked the frame of reference for the game's artistic influences.Short of Prey, the magic potential of Bioshock like games remains untapped by the gaming world.
For sure, I just don't understand why people get so upset at certain single reviews. The BOTW review by Jim sterling and reaction by people blew my mind
How is the game aimless? You are always given a narrative goal, and that goal drives the story forward, although obviously there's a fair bit of running back and forth. How is that "unstructured and aimless"?As for We Happy Few: the game looked a disaster the moment they showed genuine gameplay. Unstructured and aimless. Nice ideas, poor execution.
The early access launch was missing almost the entire game. The Youtube videos that cut the game down to just its story are 7 hours long. It's a 30 hour game with hours of cutscenes. None of which was in the Early Access launch, nor the early access builds. The game's story production values are very high. That's what they've spent the last two years working on. Expanding the game's narrative focus because that's what people wanted.
In this case, it's because the game is quite overtly not influenced by Bioshock. The whole "Bioshock-like" thing was projected onto the game by external parties who lacked the frame of reference for the game's artistic influences.
Nothing like that. It's just a pretty amazing game with fantastic writing and world building that was clearly pushed out the door too quickly. I certainly wouldn't recommend playing it until the next wave of patches, since it is rather buggy, but it has a lot going for it, and because so many people are just repeating second hand opinions instead of playing the game, discussion goes in circles. Hopefully that'll change when the game gets some patches and perhaps a price drop and more people play it.You seem to have a personal attachment to the game and its development. Just a backer or what?
For sure, I just don't understand why people get so upset at certain single reviews. The BOTW review by Jim sterling and reaction by people blew my mind
Well his view on the game was pretty dumb, it was complaining about weapon breaking: a feature, like it or not, that was fundamental the entire survival theme of the game, and that no competent gamer had issues with.
As for We Happy Few: the game looked a disaster the moment they showed genuine gameplay. Unstructured and aimless. Nice ideas, poor execution.
Well his view on the game was pretty dumb, it was complaining about weapon breaking: a feature, like it or not, that was fundamental the entire survival theme of the game, and that no competent gamer had issues with.
I think it's a bit silly to act like this is the best they can do and that it was a bad aqquisition; that's a very silly, premature statement.
He said he liked the game overall and gave it a good score, hows that dumb?
I never said anything about the overall score, just that specific criticisms were bizarre for a survival adventure game. It would be like criticising Resident Evil 1 for its clunky movement, or Far Cry 2 for malaria: frustrating but carefully chosen design choices that serve a clear purpose within the overall experience. Jim's criticism of BotW should a complete misunderstanding of the game.
It's not like criticising Halo for its dual weapon system where that system is arguably less fundamental to the game's function.
Still, he does a good job of criticising We Happy Few, a game that, quite frankly, had some glaring issues from the early showings.
I'm sure when their next game under Microsoft comes out people won't even compare it with We Happy Few.
Yeah no, especially for people who have limited time in their hands.
The best thing to do is find reviewers which aligns with your taste , for me it's EasyA, ACG, and SkillUp, and see what they're take on it.
So since we have limited time we shouldn't do any hobby? Which reviewer are you referring to that says their opinion matters more?If people have THAT limited of time maybe gaming isn't right in the first place?
Reviews aren't bad at all, the problem is now anyone with a camera thinks thier opinions matter and that isn't the case at all. Some games speak to some while others think it's awful, nature of the beast
This game used to be 30 bucks in early access?
It looks like a budget game at best. Not a game published by Microsoft with a full price tag. This studio is off to a bad start.
Shit wait these people made Contrast???
So since we have limited time we shouldn't do any hobby? Which reviewer are you referring to that says their opinion matters more?
Not the developer as well? Considering their last and only previous game wasn't exactly free from bugs.Gearbox being the publisher explains the game being released in a buggy state.
They wouldn't do that. Not before they put out another title.Have MS or compulsion said What they're planning on doing? If not then there are no guarantees. They could support Halo or some other franchise.
Not at all but games take time to complete and playing a game for even 30 minutes will tell you yes I like this, no I don't.
Not the developer as well? Considering their last and only previous game wasn't exactly free from bugs.
Then why simply blame the publisher without knowing about the other parties involved?I'm not that familiar with the developer unfortunately, and haven't read up on their previous game. I only know that one trailer a few years ago looked pretty good.
Then why simply blame the publisher without knowing about the other parties involved?
This is very much not true. Unless you're playing a run-based, score attack sort of game (And maybe not even then), 30 minutes is often barely scrapping the surface of what a game is, and what it will become over the next hour, 5 hours, or 20 hours.
The value of listening to reviewers is having someone who took the time to get to those places and offer their opinions so you don't have to play for 5 hours and realize those things that seemed like a lot of fun in the first 30 minutes don't actually pay off in any meaningful way (Or that a boring opening builds into something very complex and rewarding over the first couple hours). "Form you own opinion" is great if you've got unlimited time, but when it comes to entertainment purchases, I'm more than happy to look at an aggregate of reviews and make a purchasing decision.
No one in this world has unlimited time, but you see the IGN situation, and now this one, people who take these reviewers at face value what did you do before the internet and a place where anyone could just voice if something is shit or not?
As I've stated before people doing reviews is fine but why does this one guy deserve a thread where he trashes a game? What about the millions of other reviews? We have a review thread/OT for a reason.
Jim Sterling has been around the industry for a long time. He's well known. People clearly like his stuff. He frequently gets his own review threads. (As a variety of other outlets do.) Does it matter if he trashed the game? If you have some reviewer that who you particularly like or think is worthwhile, you should create a thread to bring attention to it (as you're seeing in this thread).
If you think no one should do that, maybe take it up with the mods, as it's considered perfectly acceptable. I don't like AngryJoe, and yet, I don't find myself compelled to go into those threads and tell people that person doesn't need a thread.
No one in this world has unlimited time, but you see the IGN situation, and now this one, people who take these reviewers at face value what did you do before the internet and a place where anyone could just voice if something is shit or not?
As I've stated before people doing reviews is fine but why does this one guy deserve a thread where he trashes a game? What about the millions of other reviews? We have a review thread/OT for a reason.